I would accept a job at Facebook.
Though I would expressly reject job offers from corporations I am completely morally opposed to, I don’t believe that Facebook – to my knowledge and research – fully fits that description. While Facebook has undoubtedly participated in morally ambiguous, and sometimes ethically wrong actions (such as the Cambridge Analytica scandal), it’s inarguable that the social media giant is a powerhouse in shaping public opinion and perception. Take, for example, the last presidential election in which the Russian government spent exorbitant sums of money to run election interference ads on Facebook’s platform. Given Facebook’s extensive reach, I believe it’s important to have people on the inside who can attempt to steer the company in the right direction and away from potential scandals and malpractice. Conscientious actors are a necessity to ensure that companies don’t stray from their overarching values and mission. If all conscientious actors were to boycott companies for their past moral mistakes, these largely influential corporations would be even more rampant with immoral behavior and no workers to act as a moral compass.
However, though I would accept a job at Facebook, I believe that the reading makes largely weak claims for why people should still accept positions at morally questionable companies. For example, the claim that individuals have an ethical duty to themselves to maximize their potential by working at an ethically grey company seems like a flimsy excuse for being complacent about moral wrongs. The strongest argument — working within the company to better it — is strangely not even mentioned once throughout the paper.
